FT contains the line: "Moreover, it is quite likely that today’s huge current account deficits will be unsustainable post-Brexit"
How's that for the start of a crisis that will lead to a rethink on Brexit?
About as stupid as they come. Today's huge current account deficits are unsustainable full stop. As Robert has pointed out several times we have gone from a substantial creditor nation with large net foreign income to a substantial debtor nation with a lot of rent to pay in an alarmingly short period of time. Our children will be substantially the poorer for the hedonistic consumption of the last 30 years.
@BethRigby: BREAK: On heels of No 10 climbdown, Stephen Phillips says he'll force govt 2 commit to 3-day parliamentary debate BEFORE triggering Art. 50
There is clear no one on irony duty at Daily Mail this morning:
"Now you get just €0.88 for your holiday pound: Yes, that's the shocking rate now on offer as Sterling continues to slide over hard Brexit fears - so where CAN you find the best deals? "
"But a leading light in the Brexit campaign said they now expected the UK could still end up paying as much as £5bn a year into EU funds, in return for access to the single market." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37627308
Take back comptrol.
Am I reading you right when I say you're an ardent Trump supporter, and a strong Remainer?
More strongly for Remain than for Trump but yes.
I find that interesting. Why do you support Trump, and the EU?
I can see why you're asking that question, there does seem to be a strong correlation between Leavers and Trump supporters. why is that? Could it be that they are more guided by emotion than logic - genuine question.
"But a leading light in the Brexit campaign said they now expected the UK could still end up paying as much as £5bn a year into EU funds, in return for access to the single market." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37627308
Take back comptrol.
Am I reading you right when I say you're an ardent Trump supporter, and a strong Remainer?
More strongly for Remain than for Trump but yes.
I find that interesting. Why do you support Trump, and the EU?
I can see why you're asking that question, there does seem to be a strong correlation between Leavers and Trump supporters. why is that? Could it be that they are more guided by emotion than logic - genuine question.
Hardly a genuine, unloaded question.
First, you need to demonstrate the correlation.
FWIW, almost everyone on pb (Leaver or Remainer) has reluctantly come to the conclusion that Hillary will probably do less damage than Trump, but it is a close run thing.
FT contains the line: "Moreover, it is quite likely that today’s huge current account deficits will be unsustainable post-Brexit"
How's that for the start of a crisis that will lead to a rethink on Brexit?
The current account deficits are unsustainable irrespective of Brexit. I am (probably) as skeptical as you about the economic consequences of departing the EU, but this line of argument seems spurious. Indeed, it's notable that the only time our current account deficit improved markedly in recent decades was the post EMU devaluation in the 90s: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/10/currency-guru-says-pound-slide-liberates-uk-from-malign-grip-of/ Of course, circumstances are different, but it's quite probable that our current account deficit will fall significantly over the next few years if the pound remains around its current level.
North carolina is an odd case. There is huge dissatisfaction with McCrory, the Republican governor, because of a law cslled HB2 which allows churchgoers to be free to legally discriminate against anyone.
Translating...
Not sure what it has to do with churchgoers in particular (other than in that neck of the woods they may support it), but Isn't that the law that says that people should use restrooms in accordance with the biological organs they happen to possess?
Labour asks 170 questions (one per day until the end of March). Apparently, totally setting out the negotiating position publicly is a good idea, in Labour land: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37622928
It's in line with Labour land protected by nuclear subs with no nukes in them....
"But a leading light in the Brexit campaign said they now expected the UK could still end up paying as much as £5bn a year into EU funds, in return for access to the single market." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37627308
Take back comptrol.
Am I reading you right when I say you're an ardent Trump supporter, and a strong Remainer?
More strongly for Remain than for Trump but yes.
I find that interesting. Why do you support Trump, and the EU?
I support the EU because I'm a true believer in 'the project' and so am therefore minded to see any issues as challenges to be solved rather than to run away from them. I don't think that European integration should be seen primarily as a manifestation of globalisation.
I respect the arguments of people on the libertarian right against the EU although I consider them to be utopian fantasists on the whole. As long as the EU exists I think it's strongly in the UK's geopolitical and cultural interests to be part of it - and even in extremis we shouldn't be the first out of the door.
Regarding Trump, above all I think having him as President would shock a lot of people out of a fatalistic complacency about world politics and make truly consequential decisions seem conceivable again. From my own perspective I like his ambivalence about NATO and believe that he'd be the only Western politician with the ability to lead a genuine rapprochement with Russia.
Thank you - whilst I strongly disagree with those views, I appreciate the explanation.
"But a leading light in the Brexit campaign said they now expected the UK could still end up paying as much as £5bn a year into EU funds, in return for access to the single market." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37627308
Take back comptrol.
Am I reading you right when I say you're an ardent Trump supporter, and a strong Remainer?
More strongly for Remain than for Trump but yes.
I find that interesting. Why do you support Trump, and the EU?
I can see why you're asking that question, there does seem to be a strong correlation between Leavers and Trump supporters. why is that? Could it be that they are more guided by emotion than logic - genuine question.
Hardly a genuine, unloaded question.
First, you need to demonstrate the correlation.
FWIW, almost everyone on pb (Leaver or Remainer) has reluctantly come to the conclusion that Hillary will probably do less damage than Trump, but it is a close run thing.
I didn't say it wasn't loaded, although it depends on whether you think that making decisions based on emotion is a bad thing. We have one Remain Trumper and he has given his reasons, I suspect there aren't many more.
North carolina is an odd case. There is huge dissatisfaction with McCrory, the Republican governor, because of a law cslled HB2 which allows churchgoers to be free to legally discriminate against anyone.
Translating...
Not sure what it has to do with churchgoers in particular (other than in that neck of the woods they may support it), but Isn't that the law that says that people should use restrooms in accordance with the biological organs they happen to possess?
Are you not slightly everegging your rhetoric?
That is part of what it says. It also has provisions affecting local laws and workplace rules. Nonetheless because it promotes discrimination many companies are pulling back from NC as are sporting organisations. You cannot go around promoting equality in eork and sports and then hold conventions meetings or events in a place the discriminates
As an example, paypal pulled a support centre it was planning. 400 jobs gone.... the NCAA has cancelled 7 events for next year etc
Labour asks 170 questions (one per day until the end of March). Apparently, totally setting out the negotiating position publicly is a good idea, in Labour land: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37622928
It's in line with Labour land protected by nuclear subs with no nukes in them....
May showed her most important card when she announced a time limit for having sent a notification of A50.
Labour asks 170 questions (one per day until the end of March). Apparently, totally setting out the negotiating position publicly is a good idea, in Labour land: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37622928
I'm startled by the claim in the Telegraph that the Opposition choosing to hold an Opposition debate on a subject the Opposition chooses, as suggested by a Government Front Bencher in the last 48 hours, is a massive climbdown:
Labour asks 170 questions (one per day until the end of March). Apparently, totally setting out the negotiating position publicly is a good idea, in Labour land: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37622928
At some point in negotiations -- usually at the start -- you do need to tell the other side what you are after. Unfortunately, as the 170 questions are doubtless designed to show, HMG has not yet established what it does want.
North carolina is an odd case. There is huge dissatisfaction with McCrory, the Republican governor, because of a law cslled HB2 which allows churchgoers to be free to legally discriminate against anyone.
Translating...
Not sure what it has to do with churchgoers in particular (other than in that neck of the woods they may support it), but Isn't that the law that says that people should use restrooms in accordance with the biological organs they happen to possess?
Are you not slightly everegging your rhetoric?
That is part of what it says. It also has provisions affecting local laws and workplace rules. Nonetheless because it promotes discrimination many companies are pulling back from NC as are sporting organisations. You cannot go around promoting equality in eork and sports and then hold conventions meetings or events in a place the discriminates
As an example, paypal pulled a support centre it was planning. 400 jobs gone.... the NCAA has cancelled 7 events for next year etc
Interested. Could you provide a link to a comprehensive analysis?
Labour asks 170 questions (one per day until the end of March). Apparently, totally setting out the negotiating position publicly is a good idea, in Labour land: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37622928
It's in line with Labour land protected by nuclear subs with no nukes in them....
What harm do you think setting out negotiating possibilities before hand will do?
We're not going to get a worse deal and since MPs are elected to look after our interest its only fair that they work out what the different options are and choose the one that matches the view of the most people in the country.
Mr. Jonathan, the EU isn't an ally, but a hegemon.
It's the best ally we had. It was in part us after all.
Ultimately, the UK would cease to exist as a political entity within the EU. The Project is about forging a new nation called Europe. One may consider that a good thing, but clearly most British people don't want that.
Mr. W, that does sound like incompetent reporting, at best.
Mr. L, indeed, but detailing everything publicly is just inviting failure because you'll never get 100%, and any 'defeat' will be portrayed as bad negotiation.
Mr. Monksfield, whilst having no truck with those seeking to delay, amend or reverse the decision taken at the referendum, I must agree the 'time to silence' line is not to be welcomed.
Mr. Jonathan, allies don't seek to perpetually undermine an important part of your economy with a stupid financial transactions tax, or take ever more sovereignty, or impose judgements on you by unelected judges.
Mr. Jonathan, the EU isn't an ally, but a hegemon.
It's the best ally we had. It was in part us after all.
Ultimately, the UK would cease to exist as a political entity within the EU. The Project is about forging a new nation called Europe. One may consider that a good thing, but clearly most British people don't want that.
Thank God we have you here, Sean, to explain what people have in mind when they cast a secret ballot.
Mr. Jonathan, allies don't seek to perpetually undermine an important part of your economy with a stupid financial transactions tax, or take ever more sovereignty, or impose judgements on you by unelected judges.
It's almost a Shakespearean tragedy that we're rediscovering all the reasons that made us want to join the EU in the first place.
I completely disagree. The behaviour of the EU since the referendum, and some of their plans like an EU Army coming into the open, and the attitudes and rhetoric of the Remainers has ended any doubt I had about us leaving.
Anyone like myself who is against "ever closer union" has merely to look back over the last few months to realise that Leave was the only sensible option. It's abundantly clear that there are many Remainers who even now still hope to thwart the democratic will of the people.
Mr. Jonathan, the EU isn't an ally, but a hegemon.
It's the best ally we had. It was in part us after all.
Ultimately, the UK would cease to exist as a political entity within the EU. The Project is about forging a new nation called Europe. One may consider that a good thing, but clearly most British people don't want that.
Thank God we have you here, Sean, to explain what people have in mind when they cast a secret ballot.
Mr. Jonathan, the EU isn't an ally, but a hegemon.
It's the best ally we had. It was in part us after all.
Ultimately, the UK would cease to exist as a political entity within the EU. The Project is about forging a new nation called Europe. One may consider that a good thing, but clearly most British people don't want that.
Thank God we have you here, Sean, to explain what people have in mind when they cast a secret ballot.
Do you have any evidence that the British people want to be subservient to a nation called Europe?
International negotiations develop dynamically; it is not question of picking an option from a policy menu.
I think it is totally impractical for Parliament to supervise them, but lots of scorched earth Remainers would rather we got a bad deal and be proved right than let the Government and Civil Service do the best job they can.
Mr. Jonathan, the EU isn't an ally, but a hegemon.
It's the best ally we had. It was in part us after all.
Ultimately, the UK would cease to exist as a political entity within the EU. The Project is about forging a new nation called Europe. One may consider that a good thing, but clearly most British people don't want that.
Thank God we have you here, Sean, to explain what people have in mind when they cast a secret ballot.
Do you have any evidence that the British people want to be subservient to a nation called Europe?
As it turns out, Brexit puts us more at the mercy of others. Oh well.
Labour asks 170 questions (one per day until the end of March). Apparently, totally setting out the negotiating position publicly is a good idea, in Labour land: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37622928
At some point in negotiations -- usually at the start -- you do need to tell the other side what you are after. Unfortunately, as the 170 questions are doubtless designed to show, HMG has not yet established what it does want.
Personally I would be a little less charitable, and would say that the Opposition is in such a gorblimey mess as they screw the lid on their coffin firmly down from the inside that they will clutch at any straw going, and this is today's example.
Mr. Jonathan, that does assume everyone in the Commons wants the best deal for the UK, rather than some who want to tie us as much as possible to the EU.
Mr. Jonathan, allies don't seek to perpetually undermine an important part of your economy with a stupid financial transactions tax, or take ever more sovereignty, or impose judgements on you by unelected judges.
You do realise that we had opted out of the FFT, that only 10 EU counties were going ahead with it and that we were under no pressure to sign up to it?
FFT seems like.a fairly good example of the UK making it's own decisions in the EU.
I find it curious those having a snide dig at Labour and muttering about revealing our negotiating position in advance are the first to stand up for transparency in other circumstances. Making decisions behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms was the cry used by Conservatives when Labour Governments talked to the TUC or when the subject of PR and Coalition Governments is raised.
Now, we are told to be quiet and allow the Government to negotiate in secret behind our backs - not that we will be allowed any say in the outcome of the A50 negotiations either.
I would rather trust my crown jewels to a psychopath with a rusty knife than allow Curly, Mo and Larry to decide our economic future in secret. We want as much transparency, accountability and visibility as possible so when they screw up (not if), there will be nowhere for them or the Prime Minister to hide.
As for the outcome of the A50 negotiations, the final Treaty should be formally debated and ratified by Parliament as the supreme legislative body. I see no need for a second referendum (here I part company with Tim Farron and others) but there does need to be a formal process of scrutiny and debate. If the new economic treaty between the EU and the UK can command a majority in the Commons, so be it.
Those wishing a further negotiation or re-negotiation process can suggest that in their 2020 election manifestos and explain the areas of the Treaty with which they disagree or which they think can be improved.
Mr. Jonathan, the EU isn't an ally, but a hegemon.
It's the best ally we had. It was in part us after all.
Ultimately, the UK would cease to exist as a political entity within the EU. The Project is about forging a new nation called Europe. One may consider that a good thing, but clearly most British people don't want that.
Thank God we have you here, Sean, to explain what people have in mind when they cast a secret ballot.
Yep, anyone who thinks differently to the frothing spittle flecked haters of the hard right should be silenced.
Actually it's how every election ends in a democracy. We won, you lost is regulaly hurled by one party at the other both in parliament and the broadcast media ,not alwAys using those exact words but it's there sure enough.
"President Barack Obama has blasted Donald Trump's recent remarks about women, saying they would be intolerable even for someone applying for a job at a 7-Eleven convenience store."
Sounds a bit sneering that..I would have said like milk monitor rather than a proper job that adults do.
I'm not convinced that running a big balance of payments deficit is a strong argument in favour of EU membership.
Remainers have been waiting to be vindicated on the economics since 24th June. With the recent fall in Sterling off the back of May's speech, they think they have.
Mr. Jonathan, the EU isn't an ally, but a hegemon.
It's the best ally we had. It was in part us after all.
Ultimately, the UK would cease to exist as a political entity within the EU. The Project is about forging a new nation called Europe. One may consider that a good thing, but clearly most British people don't want that.
Thank God we have you here, Sean, to explain what people have in mind when they cast a secret ballot.
Do you have any evidence that the British people want to be subservient to a nation called Europe?
As it turns out, Brexit puts us more at the mercy of others. Oh well.
Citation needed. After all, as the bad losers keep reminding us every time there's any good news, we haven't left yet.
Mr. Jonathan, allies don't seek to perpetually undermine an important part of your economy with a stupid financial transactions tax, or take ever more sovereignty, or impose judgements on you by unelected judges.
You do realise that we had opted out of the FFT, that only 10 EU counties were going ahead with it and that we were under no pressure to sign up to it?
Mr. Stodge, how did Cameron's approach to negotiation turn out?
Also, negotiating a trade deal, or exit from the EU, is not the same as forming a government. You might just as well criticise those who favour PR (who are mostly Remain types) for wanting openness here, whilst not wanting it for the formation of a government.
Mr. D, that assumes the regulation of the financial sector would not drift towards Brussels.
Mr. Jonathan, that does assume everyone in the Commons wants the best deal for the UK, rather than some who want to tie us as much as possible to the EU.
To put it politely, the govt are a bunch of useless feckers, making it up as they go and shouldn't be trusted to negotiate anything. The Commons needs to test it. It's the only chance we have.
Mr. Jonathan, the EU isn't an ally, but a hegemon.
It's the best ally we had. It was in part us after all.
Ultimately, the UK would cease to exist as a political entity within the EU. The Project is about forging a new nation called Europe. One may consider that a good thing, but clearly most British people don't want that.
Thank God we have you here, Sean, to explain what people have in mind when they cast a secret ballot.
Do you have any evidence that the British people want to be subservient to a nation called Europe?
I don't remember that option being offered in the Referendum.
I find it curious those having a snide dig at Labour and muttering about revealing our negotiating position in advance are the first to stand up for transparency in other circumstances. Making decisions behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms was the cry used by Conservatives when Labour Governments talked to the TUC or when the subject of PR and Coalition Governments is raised.
Now, we are told to be quiet and allow the Government to negotiate in secret behind our backs - not that we will be allowed any say in the outcome of the A50 negotiations either.
I would rather trust my crown jewels to a psychopath with a rusty knife than allow Curly, Mo and Larry to decide our economic future in secret. We want as much transparency, accountability and visibility as possible so when they screw up (not if), there will be nowhere for them or the Prime Minister to hide.
As for the outcome of the A50 negotiations, the final Treaty should be formally debated and ratified by Parliament as the supreme legislative body. I see no need for a second referendum (here I part company with Tim Farron and others) but there does need to be a formal process of scrutiny and debate. If the new economic treaty between the EU and the UK can command a majority in the Commons, so be it.
Those wishing a further negotiation or re-negotiation process can suggest that in their 2020 election manifestos and explain the areas of the Treaty with which they disagree or which they think can be improved.
I'm not convinced that running a big balance of payments deficit is a strong argument in favour of EU membership.
Remainers have been waiting to be vindicated on the economics since 24th June. With the recent fall in Sterling off the back of May's speech, they think they have.
Which is why so many are getting so excited.
They pinned their hopes initially on share prices, the PMI's and employment and output numbers, but they've all turned out to be disappointingly good.
North carolina is an odd case. There is huge dissatisfaction with McCrory, the Republican governor, because of a law cslled HB2 which allows churchgoers to be free to legally discriminate against anyone.
Translating...
Not sure what it has to do with churchgoers in particular (other than in that neck of the woods they may support it), but Isn't that the law that says that people should use restrooms in accordance with the biological organs they happen to possess?
Are you not slightly everegging your rhetoric?
That is part of what it says. It also has provisions affecting local laws and workplace rules. Nonetheless because it promotes discrimination many companies are pulling back from NC as are sporting organisations. You cannot go around promoting equality in eork and sports and then hold conventions meetings or events in a place the discriminates
As an example, paypal pulled a support centre it was planning. 400 jobs gone.... the NCAA has cancelled 7 events for next year etc
Interested. Could you provide a link to a comprehensive analysis?
Although the best known provision of this law is the bathroom part it also has a section regulating minimum wage and overriding city ordinances. Many cities had a higher minimum wage than the State MW but the State provision now overrides this.
Mr. Jonathan, the EU isn't an ally, but a hegemon.
It's the best ally we had. It was in part us after all.
Ultimately, the UK would cease to exist as a political entity within the EU. The Project is about forging a new nation called Europe. One may consider that a good thing, but clearly most British people don't want that.
Thank God we have you here, Sean, to explain what people have in mind when they cast a secret ballot.
Do you have any evidence that the British people want to be subservient to a nation called Europe?
As it turns out, Brexit puts us more at the mercy of others. Oh well.
Citation needed. After all, as the bad losers keep reminding us every time there's any good news, we haven't left yet.
We clearly have less influence in European policy today than before Brexit and nothing has made up for that loss.
I'm not convinced that running a big balance of payments deficit is a strong argument in favour of EU membership.
Remainers have been waiting to be vindicated on the economics since 24th June. With the recent fall in Sterling off the back of May's speech, they think they have.
Which is why so many are getting so excited.
They pinned their hopes initially on share prices, the PMI's and employment and output numbers, but they've all turned out to be disappointingly good.
International negotiations develop dynamically; it is not question of picking an option from a policy menu. .
Is 'negotiations develop dynamically' code for the 3 stooges messing up and accidentally signing away Gibraltar because they had too much vino or someone fluttered their eyelashes at them?
Secrecy is only needed in negotiations when you're afraid you are going to get shafted.
Mr. Jonathan, the EU isn't an ally, but a hegemon.
It's the best ally we had. It was in part us after all.
Ultimately, the UK would cease to exist as a political entity within the EU. The Project is about forging a new nation called Europe. One may consider that a good thing, but clearly most British people don't want that.
Thank God we have you here, Sean, to explain what people have in mind when they cast a secret ballot.
Do you have any evidence that the British people want to be subservient to a nation called Europe?
As it turns out, Brexit puts us more at the mercy of others. Oh well.
Citation needed. After all, as the bad losers keep reminding us every time there's any good news, we haven't left yet.
We clearly have less influence in European policy today than before Brexit and nothing has made up for that loss.
Apart from the fact we have more influence in British policy.
International negotiations develop dynamically; it is not question of picking an option from a policy menu.
I think it is totally impractical for Parliament to supervise them, but lots of scorched earth Remainers would rather we got a bad deal and be proved right than let the Government and Civil Service do the best job they can.
The best job that thoroughly mediocre, anti-European zealots like Liam Fox and David Davies can do deserves the closest possible scrutiny. That's what parliamentary democracy is all about and that is what we voted for, isn't it?
I'm not convinced that running a big balance of payments deficit is a strong argument in favour of EU membership.
Remainers have been waiting to be vindicated on the economics since 24th June. With the recent fall in Sterling off the back of May's speech, they think they have.
Which is why so many are getting so excited.
They pinned their hopes initially on share prices, the PMI's and employment and output numbers, but they've all turned out to be disappointingly good.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
Mr. Stodge, how did Cameron's approach to negotiation turn out?
Also, negotiating a trade deal, or exit from the EU, is not the same as forming a government. You might just as well criticise those who favour PR (who are mostly Remain types) for wanting openness here, whilst not wanting it for the formation of a government.
I wasn't aware Cameron actually had an approach beyond "you can trust Dave".
I wasn't equating the two processes as you well know but the hypocritical attitudes swirling around. At the moment, we aren't negotiating - we are posturing. Nothing anyone says before the actual A50 process begins matters - it's all for domestic consumption so you have this two-faced Government one day claiming it wants to deal with immigration yet the next it tries to reassure the City the Single Market access will be preserved.
These aims are mutually incompatible yet May has to go on trying to convince everyone there is some "magic deal" which can provide both the "benefits" of the Single Market while restricting Freedom of Movement.
As for your jibe about the formation of a Government, I suppose you could argue having an election restricted to Conservative MPs and then forming a Government is wholly democratic. How are the discussions between parties as took place in 2010 different from the discussions within a party where the Prime MInister doesn't have to explain why he or she appoints Ministers and there is no US-style confirmation process ?
I'm not convinced that running a big balance of payments deficit is a strong argument in favour of EU membership.
Remainers have been waiting to be vindicated on the economics since 24th June. With the recent fall in Sterling off the back of May's speech, they think they have.
Which is why so many are getting so excited.
They pinned their hopes initially on share prices, the PMI's and employment and output numbers, but they've all turned out to be disappointingly good.
As will this long overdue correction to the currency markets.
What is hilarious is that we all know Germany has done well (and Southern Europe badly) from the Euro as it locked in an under valued exchange rate for the Germans and an over valued one for Southern Europe.
Now we are supposed to be upset that with a mammoth trade deficit of nearly 6% of GDP our FX is being corrected from an over valued one to a fairer exchange rate? I don't think so.
North carolina is an odd case. There is huge dissatisfaction with McCrory, the Republican governor, because of a law cslled HB2 which allows churchgoers to be free to legally discriminate against anyone.
Translating...
Not sure what it has to do with churchgoers in particular (other than in that neck of the woods they may support it), but Isn't that the law that says that people should use restrooms in accordance with the biological organs they happen to possess?
Are you not slightly everegging your rhetoric?
That is part of what it says. It also has provisions affecting local laws and workplace rules. Nonetheless because it promotes discrimination many companies are pulling back from NC as are sporting organisations. You cannot go around promoting equality in eork and sports and then hold conventions meetings or events in a place the discriminates
As an example, paypal pulled a support centre it was planning. 400 jobs gone.... the NCAA has cancelled 7 events for next year etc
Interested. Could you provide a link to a comprehensive analysis?
Although the best known provision of this law is the bathroom part it also has a section regulating minimum wage and overriding city ordinances. Many cities had a higher minimum wage than the State MW but the State provision now overrides this.
@IainDale: 21% of the EU's 40,000 laws & regulations apply to the Single Market. I did not vote to stay in 21% of the EU. End of.
A very large portion of the laws and regulations are - of course - just instituting standards from various international bodies, and they will need to be enshrined in UK in one way or another.
Unless, of course, Iain is planning on taking us outside all international trade.
Well yes and those who want to sell into the single market will obviously have to comply with them anyway. But I do think that accepting that that volume of legislation from others into our law without us having a vote on it is unacceptable and why we will not be in the Single Market. The solution, obviously, is tariff free trade with the Single Market which should be our objective. Our exporters will still have to comply but our domestic market will only have to comply to the extent that we want it to (which may be quite a lot for the reasons you have pointed out.)
While I agree with that, I think we also need to be realistic.
(1) Pick up any piece of electronics. It will contain (at least) three logos on the back: FCC, CE and UL. Two of those are US standards, the third is a European. I have never seen a piece of electronics that does not have those three.
(2) Pretty mich all free trade agreements contain provisions against using product standards as non-tariff barriers. So, EU products, made to EU standards, will be saleable in the UK. As the EU market will be 5x bigger than the UK one, very few people (if any will) make products to UK rather than EU standards. (In Canada, this has essentially meant that the Canadian standards body has been effectively denuded of power. The US, by its size, effectively sets all product standards in NAFTA.)
(3) Rules on electromagnetic radiation, and the like, are set by international bodies. The good news is that we will now get our own voice on these, rather than the EU speaking for us. The bad news is that we'll still end up with basically the same set of product regulations the US and the EU have.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
Which is what I said yesterday - against some opposition in here - when I saw the government had tabled its amendment. The government proposing additional words to add onto the end of the labour motion, the extra words qualifying the intent of labout's motion to provide some extra wriggle room, was clearly a sign of weakness, indicating the Tories didn't have the votes to throw the Labour proposal out.
Doesn't necessarily mean F1, of course, but Kubica was an extremely talented driver (potential world champion). If he's still that sharp, a return to F1 could spice things up even more.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
Theresa's got to call a general election and secure a landslide.
She's not going to be able to achieve Brexit with Cameron's small majority, that much seems increasingly obvious.
I'm beginning to think the same. Though it would be tactically clever it would be another strategic mistake because of the boundary changes still not being through.
Hopefully Clarke would retire, and Nick can beat Soubry.....
They pinned their hopes initially on share prices, the PMI's and employment and output numbers, but they've all turned out to be disappointingly good.
I voted LEAVE, Sean, and I find your complacency astonishing. I really think a lot of people imagined we would invoke A50 on the morning of Friday 24th June and had we done so, I think we would have been in an infinitely worse position than we are.
All we have done is kick the can down the road to some degree (something for which we always castigated the EU) the real economic consequences of the vote to LEAVE are yet to be played out and there are some ominous signs a lot of which may be posturing.
I think a lot of the spending we are seeing from consumers comes from a degree of relief and perhaps a sense the "good times" may be coming to an end and a last splurge is needed before things get more difficult.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
Which is what I said yesterday - against some opposition in here - when I saw the government had tabled its amendment. The government proposing additional words to add onto the end of the labour motion, the extra words qualifying the intent of labout's motion to provide some extra wriggle room, was clearly a sign of weakness, indicating the Tories didn't have the votes to throw the Labour proposal out.
Alternative with the extra words the motion is effectively transformed into being a government motion not an opposition one. If the government's amendment is thrown out then that would be a problem.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
I'm not convinced that running a big balance of payments deficit is a strong argument in favour of EU membership.
Remainers have been waiting to be vindicated on the economics since 24th June. With the recent fall in Sterling off the back of May's speech, they think they have.
Which is why so many are getting so excited.
They pinned their hopes initially on share prices, the PMI's and employment and output numbers, but they've all turned out to be disappointingly good.
As will this long overdue correction to the currency markets.
What is hilarious is that we all know Germany has done well (and Southern Europe badly) from the Euro as it locked in an under valued exchange rate for the Germans and an over valued one for Southern Europe.
Now we are supposed to be upset that with a mammoth trade deficit of nearly 6% of GDP our FX is being corrected from an over valued one to a fairer exchange rate? I don't think so.
A lot depends on British consumers reaction to the Brexit devaluation, if they keep buying the same German cars, Italian fridges and Chinese electronics, and put up with the price increases by cutting back elsewhere then the balance of payments deficit may well increase rather than reduce.
I really think a lot of people imagined we would invoke A50 on the morning of Friday 24th June and had we done so, I think we would have been in an infinitely worse position than we are.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
Theresa's got to call a general election and secure a landslide.
She's not going to be able to achieve Brexit with Cameron's small majority, that much seems increasingly obvious.
I'm beginning to think the same. Though it would be tactically clever it would be another strategic mistake because of the boundary changes still not being through.
Hopefully Clarke would retire, and Nick can beat Soubry.....
Even without boundary changes current polling suggests a Con majority of 80.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
Theresa's got to call a general election and secure a landslide.
She's not going to be able to achieve Brexit with Cameron's small majority, that much seems increasingly obvious.
I'm beginning to think the same. Though it would be tactically clever it would be another strategic mistake because of the boundary changes still not being through.
Hopefully Clarke would retire, and Nick can beat Soubry.....
Even without boundary changes current polling suggests a Con majority of 80;
I'm not convinced that running a big balance of payments deficit is a strong argument in favour of EU membership.
Remainers have been waiting to be vindicated on the economics since 24th June. With the recent fall in Sterling off the back of May's speech, they think they have.
Which is why so many are getting so excited.
They pinned their hopes initially on share prices, the PMI's and employment and output numbers, but they've all turned out to be disappointingly good.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
I find it curious those having a snide dig at Labour and muttering about revealing our negotiating position in advance are the first to stand up for transparency in other circumstances. Making decisions behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms was the cry used by Conservatives when Labour Governments talked to the TUC or when the subject of PR and Coalition Governments is raised.
Now, we are told to be quiet and allow the Government to negotiate in secret behind our backs - not that we will be allowed any say in the outcome of the A50 negotiations either.
I would rather trust my crown jewels to a psychopath with a rusty knife than allow Curly, Mo and Larry to decide our economic future in secret. We want as much transparency, accountability and visibility as possible so when they screw up (not if), there will be nowhere for them or the Prime Minister to hide.
As for the outcome of the A50 negotiations, the final Treaty should be formally debated and ratified by Parliament as the supreme legislative body. I see no need for a second referendum (here I part company with Tim Farron and others) but there does need to be a formal process of scrutiny and debate. If the new economic treaty between the EU and the UK can command a majority in the Commons, so be it.
Those wishing a further negotiation or re-negotiation process can suggest that in their 2020 election manifestos and explain the areas of the Treaty with which they disagree or which they think can be improved.
Yes, take back control. Let Parliament Vote.
How realistic is it to expect something like this to be dealt with behind closed doors with the details kept secret for two years or more, anyway? In a modern media-driven democracy I would say it would be almost impossible. Just look at last night's Newsnight story, picked up elsewhere in today's media, about the possibility of our continuing to make payments to the EU through some kind of support fund for Eastern Europe. If you dig into the story the whole thing appears to be based on a comment by an unnamed cabinet minister and some off the record briefing by a civil servant.
The Government would be well advised to try a more open and transparent approach to A50 and the negotiations, since the alternative is years of similar stories and leaks based on unattributable comments, true or false, with the markets needlessly spooked as each new rumour starts going around.
I'm not convinced that running a big balance of payments deficit is a strong argument in favour of EU membership.
Remainers have been waiting to be vindicated on the economics since 24th June. With the recent fall in Sterling off the back of May's speech, they think they have.
Which is why so many are getting so excited.
They pinned their hopes initially on share prices, the PMI's and employment and output numbers, but they've all turned out to be disappointingly good.
La la la, everything's great.
FFS, I voted remain, I think leave is unwise, but reaching a judgement from 3 months statistics (either was for what its worth) is the work of fools. Sterling falling can be ascribed to Brexit but equally influential is the probability of forthcoming US IR rises and the general view that Europe is picking up.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
Theresa's got to call a general election and secure a landslide.
She's not going to be able to achieve Brexit with Cameron's small majority, that much seems increasingly obvious.
I'm beginning to think the same. Though it would be tactically clever it would be another strategic mistake because of the boundary changes still not being through.
Hopefully Clarke would retire, and Nick can beat Soubry.....
It would be a double strategic mistake because of the boundary changes not being through and it will terminate Corbyn's leadership prematurely. In hindsight Corbyn's leadership of less than two years would become a minor footnote in history of a truly transformative period of British politics (Brexit being far more interesting than Corbyn).
On a purely partisan level, Corbynism continuing to fester within Labour for three more years is another opportunity for the Tories if we have a full term this Parliament.
Comments
"Now you get just €0.88 for your holiday pound: Yes, that's the shocking rate now on offer as Sterling continues to slide over hard Brexit fears - so where CAN you find the best deals? "
Could it be that they are more guided by emotion than logic - genuine question.
First, you need to demonstrate the correlation.
FWIW, almost everyone on pb (Leaver or Remainer) has reluctantly come to the conclusion that Hillary will probably do less damage than Trump, but it is a close run thing.
Indeed, it's notable that the only time our current account deficit improved markedly in recent decades was the post EMU devaluation in the 90s:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/10/currency-guru-says-pound-slide-liberates-uk-from-malign-grip-of/
Of course, circumstances are different, but it's quite probable that our current account deficit will fall significantly over the next few years if the pound remains around its current level.
Not sure what it has to do with churchgoers in particular (other than in that neck of the woods they may support it), but Isn't that the law that says that people should use restrooms in accordance with the biological organs they happen to possess?
Are you not slightly everegging your rhetoric?
https://twitter.com/Lauren_Southern/status/785896326177419264
We have one Remain Trumper and he has given his reasons, I suspect there aren't many more.
As an example, paypal pulled a support centre it was planning. 400 jobs gone.... the NCAA has cancelled 7 events for next year etc
"Government makes 'one hell of a climbdown' as MPs demand they debate Brexit strategy"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/12/brexit-strategy-theresa-may-labour-jeremy-corbyn-pmqs-live/
Perhaps I have misunderstood, or the Telegraph blogger had drink taken.
Thanks
We're not going to get a worse deal and since MPs are elected to look after our interest its only fair that they work out what the different options are and choose the one that matches the view of the most people in the country.
There isn't one.
It's the government going into negotiations unprepared and untested.
The Commons needs to put the govt through its paces and toughen it up.
It's about the only asset we have.
Mr. L, indeed, but detailing everything publicly is just inviting failure because you'll never get 100%, and any 'defeat' will be portrayed as bad negotiation.
Mr. Monksfield, whilst having no truck with those seeking to delay, amend or reverse the decision taken at the referendum, I must agree the 'time to silence' line is not to be welcomed.
Mr. Jonathan, allies don't seek to perpetually undermine an important part of your economy with a stupid financial transactions tax, or take ever more sovereignty, or impose judgements on you by unelected judges.
Anyone like myself who is against "ever closer union" has merely to look back over the last few months to realise that Leave was the only sensible option. It's abundantly clear that there are many Remainers who even now still hope to thwart the democratic will of the people.
I think it is totally impractical for Parliament to supervise them, but lots of scorched earth Remainers would rather we got a bad deal and be proved right than let the Government and Civil Service do the best job they can.
FFT seems like.a fairly good example of the UK making it's own decisions in the EU.
I find it curious those having a snide dig at Labour and muttering about revealing our negotiating position in advance are the first to stand up for transparency in other circumstances. Making decisions behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms was the cry used by Conservatives when Labour Governments talked to the TUC or when the subject of PR and Coalition Governments is raised.
Now, we are told to be quiet and allow the Government to negotiate in secret behind our backs - not that we will be allowed any say in the outcome of the A50 negotiations either.
I would rather trust my crown jewels to a psychopath with a rusty knife than allow Curly, Mo and Larry to decide our economic future in secret. We want as much transparency, accountability and visibility as possible so when they screw up (not if), there will be nowhere for them or the Prime Minister to hide.
As for the outcome of the A50 negotiations, the final Treaty should be formally debated and ratified by Parliament as the supreme legislative body. I see no need for a second referendum (here I part company with Tim Farron and others) but there does need to be a formal process of scrutiny and debate. If the new economic treaty between the EU and the UK can command a majority in the Commons, so be it.
Those wishing a further negotiation or re-negotiation process can suggest that in their 2020 election manifestos and explain the areas of the Treaty with which they disagree or which they think can be improved.
And while I'm at it, did we join the EU to sort out a balance of payments deficit? How was that meant to work, and how come we've still got one?
And an alliance with absolutely anyone would be "in part us, after all". North Korea and Venezuela, say.
You don't seem to be thinking very clearly this morning.
Sounds a bit sneering that..I would have said like milk monitor rather than a proper job that adults do.
Which is why so many are getting so excited.
Innocent Abroad seems to think (in all sincerity) that right-wingers want to put those on the Left to the sword.
Also, negotiating a trade deal, or exit from the EU, is not the same as forming a government. You might just as well criticise those who favour PR (who are mostly Remain types) for wanting openness here, whilst not wanting it for the formation of a government.
Mr. D, that assumes the regulation of the financial sector would not drift towards Brussels.
[I do apologise].
Although the best known provision of this law is the bathroom part it also has a section regulating minimum wage and overriding city ordinances. Many cities had a higher minimum wage than the State MW but the State provision now overrides this.
https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/786114265937772544
Secrecy is only needed in negotiations when you're afraid you are going to get shafted.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-climbdown-labour-tory-rebels-article-50-a7356821.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/300480-pro-clinton-super-pac-targets-latino-voters-in-nevada
I wasn't equating the two processes as you well know but the hypocritical attitudes swirling around. At the moment, we aren't negotiating - we are posturing. Nothing anyone says before the actual A50 process begins matters - it's all for domestic consumption so you have this two-faced Government one day claiming it wants to deal with immigration yet the next it tries to reassure the City the Single Market access will be preserved.
These aims are mutually incompatible yet May has to go on trying to convince everyone there is some "magic deal" which can provide both the "benefits" of the Single Market while restricting Freedom of Movement.
As for your jibe about the formation of a Government, I suppose you could argue having an election restricted to Conservative MPs and then forming a Government is wholly democratic. How are the discussions between parties as took place in 2010 different from the discussions within a party where the Prime MInister doesn't have to explain why he or she appoints Ministers and there is no US-style confirmation process ?
What is hilarious is that we all know Germany has done well (and Southern Europe badly) from the Euro as it locked in an under valued exchange rate for the Germans and an over valued one for Southern Europe.
Now we are supposed to be upset that with a mammoth trade deficit of nearly 6% of GDP our FX is being corrected from an over valued one to a fairer exchange rate? I don't think so.
(1) Pick up any piece of electronics. It will contain (at least) three logos on the back: FCC, CE and UL. Two of those are US standards, the third is a European. I have never seen a piece of electronics that does not have those three.
(2) Pretty mich all free trade agreements contain provisions against using product standards as non-tariff barriers. So, EU products, made to EU standards, will be saleable in the UK. As the EU market will be 5x bigger than the UK one, very few people (if any will) make products to UK rather than EU standards. (In Canada, this has essentially meant that the Canadian standards body has been effectively denuded of power. The US, by its size, effectively sets all product standards in NAFTA.)
(3) Rules on electromagnetic radiation, and the like, are set by international bodies. The good news is that we will now get our own voice on these, rather than the EU speaking for us. The bad news is that we'll still end up with basically the same set of product regulations the US and the EU have.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/gossip
Doesn't necessarily mean F1, of course, but Kubica was an extremely talented driver (potential world champion). If he's still that sharp, a return to F1 could spice things up even more.
But in current La La Land, he is probably a Red Tory.
She's not going to be able to achieve Brexit with Cameron's small majority, that much seems increasingly obvious.
Hopefully Clarke would retire, and Nick can beat Soubry.....
All we have done is kick the can down the road to some degree (something for which we always castigated the EU) the real economic consequences of the vote to LEAVE are yet to be played out and there are some ominous signs a lot of which may be posturing.
I think a lot of the spending we are seeing from consumers comes from a degree of relief and perhaps a sense the "good times" may be coming to an end and a last splurge is needed before things get more difficult.
The end of UKIP means the so called 'progressive majority' dies in a ditch for at least two generations.
I live in hope!
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
That'd do...
The boundary changes are key....
Oh,.. wait a minute.
The latter of course being unelected officials who think they have a right to make Britain's most important decisions.
The Government would be well advised to try a more open and transparent approach to A50 and the negotiations, since the alternative is years of similar stories and leaks based on unattributable comments, true or false, with the markets needlessly spooked as each new rumour starts going around.
On a purely partisan level, Corbynism continuing to fester within Labour for three more years is another opportunity for the Tories if we have a full term this Parliament.
Sorry but that wasn;'t what the remainers told us. They told us there would be a cataclysm from day one.
They were totally wrong then. so I see absolutely no reason to believe them now.